| Toward improved evidence standards and methods for rehabilitation: recommendations and challenges. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 22840883 Owner: NLM Status: In-Data-Review |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
Johnston MV, Dijkers MP. Toward improved evidence standards and methods for rehabilitation: recommendations and challenges. Interventions and programs for people with disability should be based on the best-the most discriminating and rigorous-methods of systematic review and knowledge translation possible. Extant systems for systematic review and practice recommendations have excellent features but severe difficulties are encountered when attempting to apply them to disability and rehabilitation. This article identifies issues in evidence synthesis and linked practice recommendations and describes both new and long-tested methods to address them. Evidence synthesis in disability and rehabilitation can be improved by: explicating criteria for evaluating nonrandomized evidence, including the regression discontinuity, interrupted time series, and single-subject designs, as well as state-of-the-art methods of analysis of observational studies; greater use of meta-analysis; considering effect size, direction of biases, and dose-response relationships; employing more discriminating methods of evaluating flaws in masking, considering also measurement reliability and objectivity; considering overall biases and conflicts of interest; increased attention to composition of review panels; and greater transparency in reporting of the bases of reviewers' judgments. Review methods need to be developed for assistive technology and for measurement procedures. Application to practice can be improved by attention to treatment alternatives, explicit evaluation of generalizability, synthesizing clinical experience as a source of evidence, and a focus on the best-rather than the ideally most-rigorous-evidence. Study outcomes should be measured and reviewed in terms meaningful to persons served. In sum, methods are available to improve evidence synthesis and the application of resulting knowledge. We recommend that these methods be employed. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Mark V Johnston; Marcel P Dijkers |
Related Documents
:
|
22606233 - A new way of identifying biomarkers in biomedical basic-research studies. 23003713 - Potential field cellular automata model for pedestrian flow. 1804453 - On a simplified model of the renal medulla. |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Volume: 93 ISSN: 1532-821X ISO Abbreviation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Publication Date: 2012 Aug |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2012-07-30 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 2985158R Medline TA: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: S185-99 Citation Subset: AIM; IM |
Copyright Information:
|
Copyright © 2012 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
Affiliation:
|
Department of Occupational Science and Technology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Conducting systematic evidence reviews: core concepts and lessons learned.
Next Document: Obesity and food insecurity at the same table: how head start programs respond.